Additional information to follow. Please contact us to learn more.

Prior Forums:

Location, Location, Location: Strategies for Administering and Litigating Trusts Across State Lines (Sept. 16, 2025)

Maslon's Inaugural Forum on Wealth Management and Litigation (Sept. 12, 2024)

In "The In-House Counsel’s Guide to Noncompetes and Other Restrictive Covenants," the attorneys and their in-house counsel panelists discuss what companies need to be thinking about when using restrictive covenants with employees and how they can best navigate the changing enforcement landscape.

Moderator:

Michael Sheran, Partner, Maslon

Panelists:

John Duffey, Partner, Maslon
Melissa Muro LaMere, Partner, Maslon
Jana Bruder, Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, U.S. Bank
Mary Heath, Corporate Counsel, Bio-Techne

Maslon is a co-sponsor of the event.

To register, go to ACC MN 15th Annual In-House Counsel Conference.

ACC Minnesota will seek approval with the Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education for 1.0 hour of standard CLE credit.

In this CLE, presented June 18, we’ll break down the mechanics of the new Trust Code updates and how ultra-high net worth individuals can take advantage of the new dynasty trust statute. Then, we will pivot to the front lines of client protection: identifying subtle red flags of financial exploitation in vulnerable adults and explaining the impact of the new statutory protection.

Presenters:

Michael Sampson, Partner and Chair, Estate Planning Group. Mike's legal practice focuses on high-end estate and tax planning, estate and trust administration, charitable planning, and business succession planning. Mike helps his clients focus on what it is they really want to accomplish with their wealth. After assisting his clients in identifying their specific wealth planning goals, Mike works with them and their other professional advisors to develop and implement wealth transfer strategies that are consistent not only with their goals, but also with their cash flow needs and tolerance for risk.

Evan Nelson, Partner, Trust & Estate Litigation Group. Evan describes himself as a “death and dirt” lawyer. He represents clients in trusts and estate disputes, which often come to a head after a family member has died, and in real estate litigation, where clients dispute who owns and controls access to "dirt." Because the two often intersect, as people will gift land (or attempt to do so) via their wills or trusts, Evan’s distinct capabilities prove particularly beneficial. Trust and estate law is written to balance the interests of fiduciaries and beneficiaries. Evan has significant litigation experience representing both sides, and he enjoys using that experience to craft a successful litigation strategy tailored for either type of client.

Carly Johnson, Associate, Trust & Estate Litigation Group. Carly assists clients across a broad range of disputes, with a particular emphasis on trust and estate, including guardianships/conservatorships, contested estates, probate, and elder law matters. She also advises clients on contract, construction, and real estate disputes. Carly's practice is informed by her active civic engagement and service, which includes her election to the Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, city council in 2018.

Continuing Education: Maslon will seek approval with the Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education for 1.0 hour of standard CLE credit, and with American Bankers Association (ABA) Professional Certifications for the equivalent Certified Trust and Fiduciary Advisor (CTFA) credit.

For more information, write to us here. 

Maslon attorneys recognized as 2025 North Star Lawyers are as follows:

Nathaniel Ajouri
CB Baga
Jevon Bindman
Carmen Carballo
Clayton Carlson
Emilio Giuliani III
Peter Hennigan
Erica A. Holzer
Susan J. Link
Jim Long
Matthew Loven
Annika Misurya
Evan A. Nelson
Anna Petosky
Jill Petrovic
Jonathan Septer
Haley-Rose Severson
Keiko Sugisaka
Emily Taylor
Laura Trahms-Hagen
Jeremy Walls

In addition to the MSBA's North Star Lawyers program, Maslon's long-standing commitment to pro bono work includes participation in the Pro Bono Challenge, a unique, aspirational pro bono standard developed by law firm leaders and corporate general counsel, which the firm has met in each of the past 11 years. Participating law firms acknowledge their institutional, firm-wide commitment to provide pro bono legal services to low-income and disadvantaged individuals and families and nonprofit groups.

For more information, go to: Minnesota State Bar Association's North Star Lawyer Program.

Date: May 18, 2026

Agenda:

3–3:05 p.m. | Introduction / Speaker Biographies / Summary

3:05–3:15 p.m. | How counsel handle no-contest/exculpatory clauses

3:15–3:20 p.m. | How trustees utilize accounting actions/statements to shorten statutes of limitations

3:20–3:25 p.m. | Effective language in settlement agreements to insulate fiduciaries

3:25–3:30 p.m. | Instances to recommend court proceedings to approve fiduciary conduct

3:30–3:40 p.m. | Underutilized tools for trustees to reduce their liability

3:40–3:48 p.m. | How a scenario where a trustee is resigning in favor of a successor trustee (i.e., the trust is continuing) would change counsel’s advice

3:48–4 p.m. | Questions

Presenters:

• Julian Zebot, Partner; Chair, Trust & Estate Litigation Group, Maslon LLP
  Julian Zebot focuses his legal practice on probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation as well as business and commercial litigation, and he chairs Maslon's Trust & Estate Litigation Group. He has counseled and represented individual and business clients in both federal and state courts as well as arbitration proceedings, and he has handled matters for clients at all stages of the litigation process, including mediation, trials, and appeals.
• Nate Ajouri, Associate, Trust & Estate Litigation Group, Maslon LLP
  Nate helps fiduciaries and individuals navigate often complex probate and estate litigation matters. He also works with a broad spectrum of organizations in business, commercial, and municipal litigation. Nate is dedicated to helping clients through all stages of the process, working closely with them to achieve their goals. He often draws upon his experiences living and studying internationally to offer a unique perspective on his clients' concerns.
• Kelley Scrocca, Counsel, Estate Planning Group, Maslon LLP
  Kelley is a highly experienced trust and estate attorney who specializes in assisting ultra high net worth clients with estate planning, asset protection planning, and complex trust administration. She has represented a wide range of individuals, from professional athletes to ranch owners to members of the U.S. Congress. Kelley works closely with both clients and their families to understand their goals, facilitate wealth transfer, and establish an enduring legacy for future generations.

Continuing Education: Maslon will seek approval with the Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education for 1.0 hour of standard CLE credit.

To register, please contact us at info@maslon.com.

PLAC brings together corporations and outside legal counsel with a common goal of managing risk throughout the product life cycle. Its conferences, webinars, industry discussion forums and action groups are by invitation only. Sustaining members represent the best and most experienced regulatory, trial, and appellate legal professionals from the U.S. and abroad.

Katie has successfully defended a wide variety of national and multinational product manufacturer clients of varying sizes in hundreds of matters across a range of product industries in federal and state courts throughout the country. She has significant experience in the medical device, consumer products, and chemical product industries, serving as national coordinating and trial counsel managing extensive portfolios of product liability filed litigation and unfiled claims, as a lead member in a “virtual law team” for clients managing defense of a mass tort, and as a go-to partner for Am Law 100 firms as local Minnesota counsel.

In 2025, Katie was named among the Top Women in Law in Minnesota Lawyer.

Jevon was presented with the award at the 2026 Annual Banquet, held on April 30. Past honorees include litigation Partner Erica Holzer and the late David Herr.

Jevon works with clients in a range of industries, with a focus on assisting policyholders in insurance coverage disputes and representing stakeholders in construction and real estate matters, as well as appeals. Among his many honors, he has been named an Up and Coming attorney in Minnesota for construction law in Chambers USA, 2024 Attorney of the Year in Minnesota Lawyer, and recipient of the national Holt Gwyn Writing Award from the American College of Construction Lawyers in 2025.

Jim represents clients in the areas of antitrust law, franchise law, and dealer/distribution law in multiple state and federal courts across the country. He has successfully tried cases to juries in antitrust, franchise, dealer termination, and breach of contract cases; responded to state AG, DOJ, and FTC investigations; worked on numerous arbitrations; and argued appeals in the Seventh and Eighth Circuit appellate courts in addition to several state appellate courts.

Jim also serves on Maslon's pro bono committee and devotes many hours to pro bono work each year, including as a volunteer attorney with the Children’s Law Center of Minnesota.

Jim served on the law review while studying for his J.D. at the University of Minnesota Law School, where he now teaches Antitrust Law.

In “Hogwarts School of Risk Transfer: CG 20 10, CG 20 37, and the Grimoire of Additional Insurance,” Jevon and Leah invite attendees into the enchanted world of additional insured endorsements, where contracts cast spells and risk is transferred with the flick of a legal wand. This session demystifies the arcane language of CGL (Commercial General Liability) forms, teaching attorneys how to navigate the magical (and occasionally cursed) realm of coverage extensions.

To register, go to: MSBA Additional Insured Endorsements and Coverage Extensions CLE.

The session is also available on Zoom.

Jevon works with clients in a range of industries, with a focus on representing stakeholders in construction and real estate matters and assisting policyholders in insurance coverage disputes, including at the appellate level. He has established himself as a thought leader in the Minnesota legal community, co-authoring four volumes of the Minnesota Practice Series. Jevon is an associate fellow with the Construction Lawyers Society of America, and he received the national Holt Gwyn Writing Award in 2025 for best construction article by the American College of Construction Lawyers.

Leah has a decade of experience in complex commercial disputes, including construction and insurance matters. She practices in state and federal courts nationwide and also represents clients at the appellate level. Leah is an active member of the American Bar Association Forum on Construction Law and the ABA’s Litigation Section.

The National LGBTQ+ Bar Association is an affiliate of the American Bar Association. For more information and a full list of awardees, see 40 Best LGBTQ+ Lawyers Under 40.

At Maslon, CB (pronouns: they/them) represents clients on pro bono legal matters, assists with pro bono program administration, manages the UPLIFT: Legal Institute for Teens mock trial program, and supports the firm's overall DEI efforts.

A thought leader and advocate for underrepresented and underserved populations, CB frequently speaks on issues pertaining to DEI and access to justice, with audiences over the last five years including bar associations, county and city attorneys’ offices, law schools, and affinity groups such as Minnesota Lavender Bar Association (MLBA), Minnesota Women Lawyers (MWL), and Minnesota Association for Justice (MAJ).

While still in law school, CB founded the Pro Bono Volunteer Lawyers Network Queer/Trans Community Clinic in conjunction with community partners Family Tree Clinic and the Minnesota Trans Health Coalition. CB has continued as managing attorney of the clinic, which provides free counsel on housing, orders for protection, identity document updates, insurance coverage for gender affirming care, and civil rights.

The court's opinion is a reminder that while federal investigative powers are broad, they are not unlimited. Nevertheless, whether you are an individual or a corporation, receiving a federal grand jury subpoena can carry significant consequences should you fail to properly protect your rights.

How Does the Grand Jury System Work?

The grand jury system serves as the main way federal prosecutors investigate crimes and obtain criminal indictments. Grand juries serve as a powerful tool by which prosecutors obtain documents and compel the testimony of witnesses, all without the presence of a defendant who might otherwise object or ask questions of their own.

Because the prosecutor controls the evidence obtained by and presented to a grand jury, indictments have become increasingly straightforward for prosecutors to obtain over the last several decades. The lack of defense presence and minimal burden of proof at the grand jury stage form the basis for the ubiquitous saying that a competent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

Grand Jury as Gatekeeper

But the power of a grand jury ultimately belongs not to the prosecutor but to the grand jury itself. Grand juries are not intended to be a rubber stamp for prosecutions; rather, they are gatekeepers tasked under the U.S. Constitution with ensuring prosecutors do not abuse their powers. And, in the past year, grand juries have exercised some skepticism of prosecutions.

For example, a federal grand jury reportedly twice-refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, and a separate grand jury reportedly refused to indict democratic lawmakers that prosecutors were investigating for a video in which members of the military were instructed not to obey illegal orders.[2] In one of the most famous recent cases, a grand jury refused to indict a man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent during a protest.[3]

What Is a Grand Jury Subpoena?

The grand jury subpoena is an investigative tool that allows prosecutors to compel people and entities to provide documents, evidence, and even testimony to assist with federal investigations and, ultimately, obtain criminal indictments. It is one of the most powerful tools of the grand jury process.

When a company or an individual receives a grand jury subpoena, they are compelled to participate in the government's investigation unless they can convince a court that the subpoena violates their rights or is in some other way defective. In those instances, subpoena recipients can file a motion with the court to quash—or cancel—the subpoena.

The recent grand jury ruling is a reminder that defense attorneys and the courts play an important role in safeguarding the grand jury process by moving to quash grand jury subpoenas and ruling upon the same.

When Courts Step In

Federal courts may agree to quash or modify a grand jury subpoena for a limited number of reasons. For example, a subpoena to someone being investigated for a crime may violate their Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, and other constitutional protections.[4] Or, a subpoena may seek documents or information that are protected by an applicable privilege from discovery, such as the attorney-client privilege.[5] A court may also quash or modify a subpoena that seeks irrelevant information, is vague, overly broad, or that is unduly burdensome on the subpoena recipient.[6] In recent months, however, courts have increasingly agreed to quash subpoenas based upon a previously rare concern: that the subpoena was issued for an improper purpose.

Grand juries have broad investigative powers and "can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because [the Government] wants assurance that it is not."[7] But that power is not unlimited, and "[g]rand juries are not licensed to engage in arbitrary fishing expeditions, nor may they select targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to harass."[8]

In the past few decades, courts have found certain, rare instances where a grand jury subpoena should be quashed because it carries an improper (but not expressly malicious) purpose, such as trial preparation. Looking further back, there are rare examples from the civil rights era of courts limiting grand jury investigations based upon far more concerning conduct, such as a 1978 decision by the Fifth Circuit that limited an improper grand jury investigation into a Black citizens group that had criticized a prosecutor.[9]

Summing It Up: The Recent Ruling

The D.C. federal court's March 11 order reflects the fact that although findings of malicious intent and improper purpose are historically rare, they are increasingly considered and applied by federal courts. In this case, the court quashed grand jury subpoenas that had been issued to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as part of prosecutors’ criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.[10] The court based its decision, in large part, upon numerous tweets and public statements by the president that expressed anger towards Powell and a desire that he resign from his position as Federal Reserve Chairman.[11]

Applying case law that more often was used to determine whether a grand jury was being used for trial preparation, the court quashed the subpoenas because their "sole or dominant" purpose was improper.[12] The court found that the purpose of the grand jury investigation was to "sic prosecutions on people because the President dislikes them" and to "use criminal subpoenas as a form of official coercion" to get Powell to either resign from his position or acquiesce to the president's policy demands.[13]

As such, the court found that the grand jury investigation constituted one of those rare instances where an investigation was born out of an improper purpose with malice and intent to harass.[14] In quashing the subpoenas, the court effectively ended the government's investigation before it began.

We Can Help

If you or your company has received a federal grand jury subpoena, Maslon's investigations team is available to help you navigate the process and ensure your rights are not violated. Please contact us if you have questions or would like assistance.

[1] In re Grand Jury Subpoenas [Redacted], No. 26-mc-00012 (JEB) (D.C. Dist. Ct. Mar. 11, 2026).

[2] See Max Matza, Grand Jury Declines to Indict Letitia James for Second Time in a Week, BBC (Dec. 11, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrjj30vx8eo; Brandon Drenon, Grand Jury Declines to Charge Democrats in 'Illegal Orders' Video, BBC (Feb. 11, 2026), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly2jnyy2yyo.

[3] Alan Feurer et al., Prosecutors Fail to Obtain Indictment Against Man Who Threw Sandwich at Federal Agent, New York Times (Aug. 27, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/us/politics/trump-sandwich-assault-indictment-justice-department.html.

[4] In re Grand Jury, John Doe No. G.J.2005-2, 478 F.3d 581, 585 (4th Cir. 2007) ("Rule 17(c) offers a vehicle for a subpoenaed party to assert a constitutional, statutory, or common-law privilege.")

[5] In re Green Grand Jury Proceedings, 492 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2007 ("Attorney-client communications and attorney work product are privileged and are not ordinarily discoverable—even by the grand jury.")

[6] John Doe, 478 F.3d at 585.

[7] United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991).

[8] Id.

[9] Ealy v. Littlejohn, 569 F.2d 219, 230-31 (5th Cir. 1978).

[10] In re Grand Jury Subpoenas [Redacted], No. 26-mc-00012 at 3.

[11] For example, "Jerome 'Too Late' Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of the Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS . . . . Put another way, 'Too Late' is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!" Id. at 1 (quoting Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Soc. (July 31, 2025, at 7:11 AM), https://perma.cc/PX9L-RPSD).

[12] Id. at 10.

[13] Id. at 16.

[14] Id. at 22.

The current cohort is once again the largest in UPLIFT's history, with the addition of Roseville Area High School and a total participation of 93 students. To date, 414 school students have completed the program, which is free of charge.

Launched by Maslon in 2017, UPLIFT is a legal diversity pipeline nonprofit serving middle and high school students reflecting the rich diversity of the Twin Cities. The afterschool mock trial program is taught by volunteer attorneys and law students who meet with participating students throughout the academic year, teaching them about criminal trials, rights, and the legal profession. Participation in the program helps students build confidence, develop analytical and speaking skills, foster long term vision, and create a framework to pursue academic excellence in high school.

This year's participants were assigned to teams representing either the prosecution or defense in the fictional case of State of Minnesota v. Coco St. Clair, which involves a fatal shooting that occurred during a dress rehearsal of an original play titled Burr during the famous Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr duel. To lend authenticity to the experience, students presented their cases before sitting Minnesota judges, including Maslon alumnus Martin Fallon of the First Judicial District, Mariam Mokri and Bridget Sullivan of the Fourth Judicial District, Der Yang of the Second Judicial District, and Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge JaPaul Harris. Volunteer coaches from Maslon included Nate Ajouri, Clayton Carlson, Gioia Gentile, Evan Nelson, Terry Newby, Renee Rice, and firm alum Cooper Ashley.

"The UPLIFT mock trial program serves as an opportunity for Twin Cities youth to see themselves as attorneys—at a time in their lives when it's soon enough to make a difference for their future," said Maslon Public Interest/DEI Counsel CB Baga. "The students grow so much throughout the year, finding their voice, developing their insights, and standing on their feet in the courtroom. Our volunteers are able to work closely with the students on their teams in a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio, which results in meaningful mentorship. The conversation starts with preparing for this first trial, and quickly develops into how to prepare for high school, college—and by the end of the season, the path to law school."

UPLIFT was founded by former Maslon attorney Catherine Ahlin-Halverson.

Confidential client communications with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice are privileged. In litigation, an opposing party cannot discover these communications unless privilege is waived. Privilege belongs to the client, so when clients disclose attorney-client communications to a third party, they typically waive that privilege. Separately, attorney work product is information generated for litigation either by an attorney or at an attorney's direction, which could include documents created by a client. Work product privilege can be waived if the information is disclosed to a third party or if its confidentiality is not protected.

Clients may want to use AI to organize or develop their thoughts on legal matters and to ask legal questions short of discussing everything with counsel. Potential issues arise when clients upload attorney work product or otherwise privileged communications (e.g., a draft brief or an email) into public AI large language model tools like ChatGPT or Claude. This kind of use raises questions about whether a client's disclosure of attorney communications or work product in public AI tools constitutes disclosure to a third party that waives applicable privileges. It also raises questions about whether clients' use of generative AI platforms creates privileged work product.

Federal courts are developing a framework for analyzing privilege in this context, but the picture is not yet clear. Two cases from February 2026 illustrate this developing case law. First, United States v. Heppner held that a client's communications with public AI platforms, like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, are neither protected by attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine. --- F.Supp.3d ---- (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026). Second, Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., held that a client's use of AI tools for drafting assistance constitutes protected work product that opposing parties cannot discover. 2026 WL 373043 (S.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2026).

The Heppner Decision: Rejection of AI Privilege Protection

The Southern District of New York's decision in United States v. Heppner may be the first federal court decision to comprehensively address privilege issues in AI contexts, describing it as "a question of first impression nationwide." The court rejected both attorney-client privilege and work product protection for a client's communications with Claude, establishing a framework that likely applies to other public AI platforms.

In the criminal proceeding, the defendant had used Claude after receiving a grand jury subpoena to prepare "reports that outlined defense strategy." He input information he had learned through attorney-client communications, created the reports to have more efficient meetings with his attorney, and shared the AI product with his attorney.

The court held that the communications were not between client and attorney because "Claude is not an attorney" and no attorney-client relationship exists with AI platforms. The court rejected arguments that AI platforms function like other software tools, explaining that recognized privileges require "a trusting human relationship" with "a licensed professional who owes fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline," which cannot exist with AI platforms.

For work product protection, the court found that AI-generated documents were not "prepared by or at the behest of counsel" and did not "reflect defense counsel's strategy" at the time of creation. The defendant created the documents "on his own volition," meaning he was not acting as counsel's agent. Ultimately, the court ordered disclosure of his prompts and the AI product to the prosecution.

The Warner Decision: Protection for AI Usage as Work Product

The Eastern District of Michigan's decision in Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., took a different approach, holding that a litigant's use of AI tools for drafting assistance constitutes work product protected from discovery. The court denied a motion to compel production of information concerning plaintiff's use of third-party AI tools in connection with the lawsuit, finding that such information was not discoverable.

The court characterized AI platforms as "tools, not persons" and explained that work product waiver requires disclosure "to an adversary or in a way likely to get in an adversary's hand." Because AI tools like ChatGPT are not adversaries, and defendants presented no evidence that the plaintiff's use of AI made it likely that defendants would access the protected information, the court found no waiver.

The Warner court's protective approach applied standard work product doctrine to prevent discovery of the plaintiff's litigation preparation methods, including AI usage. The decision does not address attorney-client privilege waiver or situations involving more extensive AI data sharing that might substantially increase adversary access to protected information.

Takeaway: Be Cautious While Case Law Develops

AI is a valuable tool, but clients and attorneys must also understand its risks.

The distinction between public and private AI platforms appears crucial for privilege analysis. Public platforms like ChatGPT, Claude, and others typically involve data sharing that courts may view as third-party disclosure. Enterprise or private AI solutions with stronger confidentiality protections may receive different treatment, though no federal court has yet addressed this distinction directly. Clients and attorneys should be especially cautious when using public AI platforms, and they should have a discussion at the outset of their relationship about the topic to ensure otherwise privileged information is not inadvertently disclosed.

Second, clients should bear in mind the uncertainty in this developing case law. A court might determine that the client's usage of AI—not only the prompts used but also the resulting AI-generated content—is discoverable. It is best practice to consult with your attorney before using generative AI and inform your attorney about your AI usage.

We Can Help

Maslon's attorneys are ready to answer your questions about how to use generative AI while steering clear of potential privilege pitfalls.

To learn more about the organization’s work, go to: Groundwork Legal.

Bill has been a trial lawyer at Maslon for more than five decades. He has tried hundreds of business disputes before judges, juries, or arbitrators, and he also has argued dozens of appeals in state and federal courts. He has practiced nationally in the areas of non-compete, trade secret, and unfair competition litigation, and he has tried and won intellectual property licensing and royalty disputes collectively involving over $1 billion. In addition, Bill has been a leading trial lawyer in Minnesota in the area of ownership and governance disputes in closely held corporations, limited liability companies, and partnerships.

Bill’s contributions to the Twin Cities community are legion. He currently serves as senior legal advisor to the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN), board member of the ACLU-MN Foundation, member of the Minnesota Supreme Court Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, and board member for the MacPhail Center for Music.

Now in its 15th year, the LCLD Fellows Program has built a reputation for helping to launch mid-career attorneys into chief legal positions. As part of the year-long, multi-tiered professional development series, Melissa will be connected to LCLD's top leadership, including managing partners and general counsel from prominent organizations.

To learn more, go to: Leadership Council on Legal Diversity.

Melissa is an employment and business litigation attorney licensed to practice in California, Minnesota, and Arizona. Working out of both California and Maslon's primary office in Minneapolis, Melissa focuses her practice on the full spectrum of employment counseling and litigation matters in addition to business disputes involving non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, trade secrets, business contracts and torts, and unfair competition and trade practices.

Melissa also maintains a robust employment investigations practice. Her clients include multinational corporations, small businesses, and individuals, and she often serves as a trusted advisor in a wide variety of litigation matters in state and federal trial and appellate courts, arbitration, and mediation.

To learn more about the organization’s work, go to: Groundwork Legal.

At Maslon, Samantha specializes in government and internal investigations as well as complex business litigation. With extensive trial experience, she leverages her deep expertise to represent both corporations and individuals in high-stakes matters, including investigations, white-collar criminal defense, and complex civil litigation.